Cannibalism and the Natural Law

There comes a time — quite often actually — when a reader’s “like” inspires me to craft a post from a comment.

Bill, you have a highly overdeveloped sense of your own importance. Is that not a superfluous sentence you’ve just written?

As a vegan, I join with non-such at a restaurant, open the menu and bite my (own) tongue at the overwhelming quantity of non-vegan fare that tastelessly adorns the menu — beef tongue is but one. Hey, why is tongue not among the lurid photographs of dismemberment, decapitation, mutilation and third-degree burns? Just wondering.

Vegetarian_Dating

Wonder no more my friend, you do exactly the same thing with produce — dead on arrival at the supermarket.DOA. Q E effing D.

Tongue bite: What is the dispassionate difference between cannibalism — enjoying succulently prepared body parts from a fellow specie, and consumption of any other highly evolved sentient being, one that also has a central nervous system, among other inconvenient commonalities?

It is societally sanctioned. Call it an appetizer, entree, craving, tradition, custom, rite, blessing, a dominion-over thing. We’re talking about a nutritionally healthy and balanced diet. 

tibits-london-vegan-restaurant1

You see, it’s OK — those animal remains on our plate did not have four fingers and an opposing thumb, did they? Nor did they have vocal chords that produce sounds of all sorts. So it’s OK, OK? It is OK, Bill. By the way, have you ever heard of the Natural Law? 

Yes. I have.

Look here, Bill. We’re getting a little tired of vegans trying to stuff kale down our throats all the time. Do you have any idea what that’s like? Do you? Well let me tell you about the Natural Law. It’s what gives us dominion over all the beasts. So, populate your own planet if you don’t like it.

Bon voyage!

If that isn’t enough to stop your insane raving, we have saved the very best argument for last, so please, if it’s not asking too much. Might you leave us these two words — CANINE TEETH..  That should shut you up. Sorry if it offends you, but really.

 

natural.law.veganism

Thanks for reading.

8 thoughts on “Cannibalism and the Natural Law”

  1. We are wired to justify our own actions, more so when offered the contradiction of those actions with evidence supporting the contrary, etc. It’s where the phrase ‘clinging to guns and religion’ originated methinks.

    When someone has it in his head he can’t subsist — perhaps even thrive — without exploiting another, he will endeavor to win that argument no matter the apparent loss of face (or in this person’s case) credibility.

    As for natural law, it’s not a matter of whether we can but whether we should. That frontal cortex and ability to weigh in ethically is what separates us from the ones we dominate.

    Thoughtful post, Bill. Keep ’em coming. 😀

    Liked by 4 people

      1. I follow the apologists for ‘natural law’ to hone my arguments and to exercise my understanding of logical fallacies. Some pretty slimy characters out there who are armed to the teeth, dead certain in their righteousness and the fear of their lord.

        Liked by 2 people

    1. Shannon, thanks so much for the kind support and insight. The fallacy of affirming the consequent — believing everything that affirms your agenda and tossing out all the overwhelming evidence that disproves it — becomes the stuff of conventional wisdom rather than a cautionary warning.
      Setting neighbor against neighbor, then calling it a natural law, is a useful tool employed by propagandists who play the game for profit and control. Ethics is just another obstacle in their path.

      Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks, Shannon!
      Yes, I hadn’t seen that yet on DirtNKids but it made my day some several years since you posted the Thoreau quote and family photograph of a mother and her kids. A photograph that simply screams COMMONALITY — we witness fellow mammals in the serenity preceding…well, preceding something not in the slightest way serene.
      Thoreau is always timely and important. Walden was published in 1854 — a century and a half later the savagery is many orders of magnitude more severe.
      “Oh, when they ever learn?
      Oh, when will they ever learn?” (Pete Seeger 1955).
      Wow. I just noticed that Seeger wrote “Where have all the flowers gone?” one century after Thoreau wrote Walden. Humbling stuff.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It seems the human animal is unique insofar as having an innate capacity for hypocrisy, Bill. I don’t exclude myself from the species’ trait, naturally enough, but try to minimise my own unwitting indulgences.

    Like

    1. Our innate capacity for hypocrisy does indeed set us aside and apart from all other animals — I would say not “above” because that minimizes the extraordinary feats of different species.
      I’m not a fan of creating deities in my own image. No, I’m not. The god of dung beetles just might not look like *us*. I’m discomfited at my own capacity for hypocrisy too, Hariod. We can’t get out from under a single nanometer of our own skin, so being a Mensch or Menschin is at least attainable, even laudable.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s